EVE Search - Remote Sensor Dampener Change Proposal

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Remote Sensor Dampener Change Proposal

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nietarr	Posted - 2007.08.05 02:01:00 - [1] The Problem: Currently, RSD's do not have an effective counter. Sensor boosters are limited by the 250 KM targetting range limitation and we've seen the math on how one RSD II against one ship with a Sensor Booster II still reduces the defending ship's abilities even without considering signal suppression skill or ship bonuses. This is particularly annoying for capital ship pilots who can be dampened to complete uselessness by one tech I frigate. Proposed change: Make the effectiveness of remote sensor dampeners dependent on the sensor strengths of the attacking and defending ship. If the attacking ship's sensor strength is greater than that of the defending ship, RSD's operate at full strength. If the attacking ship's sensor strength is less than that of the defending ship, RSD's are reduced in strength by 100 * (x/y)%, where x is the attacker's signal strength and y is the defender's. So if a ship with 10 sensor strength hits a ship with 20 sensor strength, their RSD's are only 50% effective. An RSD II that normally reduces the target's lock range and scan resolution by 48% instead only reduces it by 24%. What does all this mean in general? Using RSD's on tech I ships smaller than your own will be largely unaffected, with exceptions of course. It will be much harder for smaller ships to use RSD effectively on larger targets and on many tech II ships. Capitals in particular will be difficult to dampen without fitting changes (more on that later). Overall it should reduce the all-purpose electronic warfare role that RSD has assumed now that ECM has been nerfed. I don't have all the numbers crunched and I'm sure there may be tweaking needed, but I figured I'd show my thought process through a series of Question/Answer segments... Great, why are you trying to make gallente RSD ships useless? The sensor strengths for the Maulus, Celestis, Arazu, and Lachesis are 16, 18, 26, and 30, respectively. The Maulus and Celestis will still be able to dampen anything in the tech I frig to BS range quite effectively and most tech II ships as well. The Arazu and Lachesis will be even less affected. Doesn't this mean that ECCM will also counter RSD's? Yes, ECCM will then become a secondary means of countering RSD's by increasing your ship's sensor strength relative to your enemies. Doesn't that make ECCM stupidly overpowered? I don't think so myself. Remember, ECCM is a module that does absolutely nothing for your ship UNLESS you are being hit with ECM currently, unlike sensor boosters. Making it more useful adds more variety and flavor to ship setups. An ECCM may be as effective in countering RSD's as a sensor booster but offers no other benefits, and to truly immunize yourself from RSD's would require numerous midslots to fit both sensor boosters and ECCMs. Doesn't this make capitals immune to RSD's? On the opposite side of this, it also means that if you have a fleet hunting carriers you will now need ships specifically fitted with ECCMs for RSD usage on those capitals, which I think is fair. The attacking ships with fitted ECCMs would then have the sensor strength to match or exceed the sensor strength of the carriers, making their RSD's fully effective. Just like you need to fit Neuts to hunt MoMs and Titans, I don't think it's ridiculous to ask a few ships in the fleet to use ECCM to dampen carriers effectively. Well, capitals can then also fit ECCMs to make them immune to RSD's again Yes, this is true, but remember capitals live and die by their cap recharge. By fitting an ECCM or two they are reducing their cap recharge considerably (and consequently their tank). It's a significant trade-off in my opinion.
Nietarr	Posted - 2007.08.05 02:01:00 - [2] Won't this be the death knell for RSD's? I don't agree. Numerous ships will be unaffected by this change and in the grand scheme of things I believe the effects will be fairly minimal. I think it accomplishes what I intended (nerfing frigates using RSD on carriers) without severely nerfing RSD's or affecting too many ship setups while at the same time adding just a bit more flavor to the chess match that's involved when fitting your ships. Obviously work needs to be done on ironing out the exact numbers but I believe the idea is sound. Your thoughts and flames are welcome, I anticipate much of both. I'm sure there may be some things I haven't thought of that might make the whole idea stupid.
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.05 02:05:00 - [3] damps are fine, you need 3-4 on a target to shut it down... imagine if that was ecm. really they are fine.
Blowy Gallente Shadow Company FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2007.08.05 02:16:00 - [4] I kind of agree that e-war mods, especially damps on ships that don't have bonuses for them is a bit too strong. Maybe reduce the effectiveness of the mods themselves and increase the bonus on e-war ships. Damp drake anyone? -----
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.05 02:32:00 - [5] Originally by: Blowy I kind of agree that e-war mods, especially damps on ships that don't have bonuses for them is a bit too strong. Maybe reduce the effectiveness of the mods themselves and increase the bonus on e-war ships. Damp drake anyone? Let's also, while we're at it, reduce the effectiveness of armor repairers and increase the bonus on the ships that have bonus for them. Just because some ships have a bonus for an item doesn't mean they are the only ones meant to use it. ------------------
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.08.05 02:36:00 - [6] Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: Blowy I kind of agree that e-war mods, especially damps on ships that don't have bonuses for them is a bit too strong. Maybe reduce the effectiveness of the mods themselves and increase the bonus on e-war ships. Damp drake anyone? Let's also, while we're at it, reduce the effectiveness of armor repairers and increase the bonus on the ships that have bonus for them. Just because some ships have a bonus for an item doesn't mean they are the only ones meant to use it. ECM for everyone?
Blowy Gallente Shadow Company FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2007.08.05 02:50:00 - [7] Edited by: Blowy on 05/08/2007 02:51:30 It's just that I'd rather take out my damp drake (with insurance) over my paper thin arazu or lachesis and achieve almost the same effect in terms of damping (shutdown 1-2 ships), not to mention more dps and better tank with the drake. It just seems like damps are the new ecm and we all know what happened to ecm. -----
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.05 03:33:00 - [8] Seem to me more like a lot of people who hate electronic warfare and similar modules in the game in general would like to see all reduced to uselessnes and are going down the list in their whining from module to module. It seems to you people "effective counter" = rendering the particular for of Ewar being used completely ineffective and preferably without having to use more than one fitting slot to do so, if that. ------------------
Cyan Nuevo The Blackguard Wolves	Posted - 2007.08.05 03:41:00 - [9] Originally by: Hannobaal Let's also, while we're at it, reduce the effectiveness of armor repairers and increase the bonus on the ships that have bonus for them. Just because some ships have a bonus for an item doesn't mean they are the only ones meant to use it. Wow, you're quite the proponent of RSDs it seems. Have you spent the entire day today replying to RSD threads? Anyway, to the point, of course armor repairers are a basic module that can and should be used by everybody. EW, on the other hand, is racial and when a ship with a bonus to tracking disruption (curse/pilgrim) typically has RSDs instead, you know something's up. Don't be so recalcitrant. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
Mr Krosis The humble Crew Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.05 03:48:00 - [10] This is almost the same as the solution I proposed except I suggested adding an "EW Resist" stat to the omni ECCM modules which would effectively do a very similar thing. I did run some numbers for it, so I'll contribute I suggested adding an EW Resist stat of maybe 10-25% or so (too much and it's just too powerful alone) to the ECCM, that would do the same reduction method as your sensor strength ratio. One nice thing about this method, is it is more effective the harder you are dampened. In fact, if you are dampened less than -50% (as in 0% to -49.9%), you get more out of +range% than you do out of +EWResist%. Lets say you are getting dampened by a T2 dampener with no spec skill (-48% or 52% of your original range). If 3 dampeners are stacked, that goes down to 22% of your original range. If we give the target ship +10% EW Resist (or in your example, if target ship has 10% higher sensor strength) those numbers change to 56.8% and 26.7%. Not a huge difference, but the important thing to notice here, is the situation with only one damp, you effectively got +9.2% range back from your +10% resistance. With the stronger 3 damp situation, you got a 21.4% range increase. This is a very important point to recognize, as it illustrates the difference between simple "booster style" counters and "resist style" counters as you mention here. I strongly think that dampeners themselves should not be nerfed, but I don't disagree that there should be some kind of counter to them. Sensor booster is NOT the counter. Approaching it from the viewpoint that boosters can effectively counter dampeners if we make the boosters strong enough or the dampeners weak enough is simply the wrong way to go. Lets look at the most extreme example, of a fully skilled specialist dampener ship with dual rigs and L5 skills. This ship will have a damp strength of -76.3075% per dampener. That means with 1 and 3 stacked dampeners it will bring your targeting range down to 23.7% and 4.5%. Ouch! If we give the target ship 10% EW resistance, those numbers change to 31.3% and 7.7%. That's an improvement of 32% and 71% respectively, all from 10% resistance! How about if we up it to 20% EW Resist? Those dampened ranges change to 39% and 11.9%. This gives an improvement from unresisted dampening of 65% and 164% respectively. Now we're talking! If we stacked (3) 20% resistance bonuses (stack penalized) for +57% resist, that changes our 1/3 dampened numbers to 67.1% and 38.9%. Throw a single T2 sensor booster in with those, and we're look at at 107.4% and 62.3% of original targeting range for 1 and 3 maxed out dampeners. The more I reread your idea, the more I dislike the idea of using sensor strength directly. While I see you did this to allow normal ECCMs to provide resistance, I think the boost ECCMs give now is way too powerful. Doubling your sensor strength gives makes you half as likely to get jammed by ECM, but halving dampener strength has a much more potent effect. I also don't like the idea of using the sensor strength of the attacking ship. ECM frigates are no worse at jamming then an ECM battleship. Larger ships just have higher sensor strength as a natural resistance, similar to larger ships having a longer targeting range. Also, this would make it just as easy for the attacker to fit an ECCM to pierce anyone attempting to counter. Some people might like that idea, and say hey they have to give up a mid slot to do it too, but how lame is it for the guy in a battleship with only 4 mids who gave one of them up to resist dampeners, only to have this attempt completely bypassed by an attacker who did the same. If we make ECCM a dampener counter, it should be effective in some way whenever you have it fitted. Main points I like about having a specific EW Resist stat: It doesn't nerf dampeners themselves in any way. It gives a true counter, but forces a pilot to make a sacrifice if they want that counter. -- Mr Krosis The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
Mr Krosis The humble Crew Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.05 03:48:00 - [11] A short follow up... If we could get this type of EW Resist stat in game, it could be applied to more than just an ECCM module. Imagine carriers with a built in +5-10% EW Resist per level or just a built in +30% static bonus or similar. It's always bugged me that carriers have a sensor strength several times that of a battleship making them ECM resistant, but only slightly higher targeting range. It's obvious to me that they couldn't simply give them a 300km base targeting range, so there existed no clear method to make them dampener resistant as they are ECM resistant. This could be a way to do it without giving them the arguably overpowered EW immunity of super capitals (I know siege/triage gives this too but with clear drawbacks). Our maxed out skilled/rigged setup would be unable to bring a skilled/ganged carrier with a single sensor booster and +30% EW resist down to less than 30km range even with 6 dampeners. Skilled T2 dampeners from non specialized ships wouldn't be able to bring their lock range under about 50-60km. A small update for those of you that have used my sensor dampener calculator, there is an ôundocumentedö parameter you can pass to the script to simulate EW Resistance as described here, simply add &ewresist=xx to the URL where xx is some number between 0 and 100. It's not a full feature yet so you'll have to re-add it every time you hit the calculate button for now. As an example, here is the ômax skill thanatosö vs ômax skill dampenerö setup I used above, with 30% EW Resistance: Thanatos vs Arazu (+30% EW Resist) -- Mr Krosis The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.05 03:51:00 - [12] Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Originally by: Hannobaal Let's also, while we're at it, reduce the effectiveness of armor repairers and increase the bonus on the ships that have bonus for them. Just because some ships have a bonus for an item doesn't mean they are the only ones meant to use it. Wow, you're quite the proponent of RSDs it seems. Have you spent the entire day today replying to RSD threads? Anyway, to the point, of course armor repairers are a basic module that can and should be used by everybody. EW, on the other hand, is racial and when a ship with a bonus to tracking disruption (curse/pilgrim) typically has RSDs instead, you know something's up. Don't be so recalcitrant. I'm not a proponent of Remote Sensor Dampeners. I'm a proponent of not turning the Eve combat system into super boring damage versus ship defense static crap. Basically, I'd like there to be a room for tactics in the game instead of turning combat into a virtual spreadsheet and nothing else. And by your logic (which is wrong to begin, because the whole fitting system is clearly based on any ship being able to fit whatever modules it has slots and the power grid and cpu for), then tanking is also racial. So, only Amarr and Gallente should be able to fit armor modules, right? And what does even mean, "it's a basic module"? Sensor dampeners are a basic module no different than armor repairers. ------------------
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.08.05 03:59:00 - [13] In response to the OP: No, no and no. The 'solution' is to simply reduce the strength of the damps themselves slightly, and increase the damp ship bonuses to keep the effectiveness of the dedicated damp ships the same. If people want increased damp performance for their non-damp ships, they can fit damp rigs. [07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 Fleet Combat Ships
Mr Krosis The humble Crew Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.05 04:00:00 - [14] Come on guys. There's already a 10 page rabble rabble nerf! rabble rabble don't nerf! thread about dampeners. If you have a comment or suggestion on some of the ideas presented here, lets hear them. If you want rabble rabble back and forth with each other about armor reps or whatever, do it somwhere else. -- Mr Krosis The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
Terianna Eri Amarr STK Scientific M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.08.05 04:50:00 - [15] I actually like this idea, and it makes sense that ships with high sensor strengths would be more difficult to dampen. And it's sort of the opposite of the upcoming nos-nerf - Nos only function if the target has more cap than you, RSDs only function (at full effect) if your sensor strength is higher than the target's. Mostly though I like the fact that it makes ECCM more useful, because i hate seeing modules go almost entirely unused. __________________________________
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.08.05 04:59:00 - [16] Make remote sensor damps racial... dampening radar signals is obviously different to gravimetric signals, if you fit the right damps, you are fine, if you have the wrong damps, well you get only like 33% effect.
Ezekial Crow Gallente Dark Star LTD	Posted - 2007.08.05 06:22:00 - [17] Originally by: Benn Helmsman Make remote sensor damps racial... dampening radar signals is obviously different to gravimetric signals, if you fit the right damps, you are fine, if you have the wrong damps, well you get only like 33% effect. But damps ARE not like jammers...they do not operate on sensor strength, its lock range/scan resolution. Plus it takes three damps to take out a ship, and thats on a ship that dosent get a bonus. Stop nerfing the damn game into oblivion.
William Hamilton Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.08.05 08:40:00 - [18] I agree with the OP, the problem isn't that a few damps can reduce a ship to inefectiveness, the problem is that a few damps can reduce ANY ship to ineffictiveness. A maulus, a techI frigate, loaded with dampners can make a carrier completely useless, this is absolute madness, no other e-war can affect all ship sizes as well as damps do, they all se preformance drop-offs against the big ones....
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.08.05 08:55:00 - [19] Originally by: William Hamilton I agree with the OP, the problem isn't that a few damps can reduce a ship to inefectiveness, the problem is that a few damps can reduce ANY ship to ineffictiveness. A maulus, a techI frigate, loaded with dampners can make a carrier completely useless, this is absolute madness, no other e-war can affect all ship sizes as well as damps do, they all se preformance drop-offs against the big ones.... Blatantly untrue. Try damping a carrier with it's fighters out, and pop, 15s later you are toast. drones autoaggro. Same with fofs. Damp ships are like paper and even the slightest bit of dps rips them to shreads. Not to mention that significantly reducing enemy dps is the intended role of EW. Hence all these "zomg op, this module does what it is supposed to do, zomg op" are unneccecary... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
n0thing omen.	Posted - 2007.08.05 09:02:00 - [20] Damps dont need nerf, its ECM that needs boost for their native boats. Tbh, if drakes and scorps fit damps, they fit em for a reason ECM doesnt cut it for them. And thats where it needs to be looked at. ---
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.05 09:57:00 - [21] Edited by: Aramendel on 05/08/2007 09:59:59 Originally by: n0thing Damps dont need nerf, its ECM that needs boost for their native boats. Tbh, if drakes and scorps fit damps, they fit em for a reason ECM doesnt cut it for them. And thats where it needs to be looked at. Exept those are not the only EW. Take a look at TDs and (haha) TPs. Its like saying that a mega cannot kill an (current) nosdomi and is because of that underpowered and needs to be boosted at that lvl for 1v1. If you have 1 thing which is better than everything else it is usually a better idea to nerf this thing than too boost everything. ECM is right now the happy medium, damps need to get nerfed at that lvl, TDs need to get boosted at that lvl and painters replaced by something actually useful for a recon. Drakes fit damps because they get no ECM bonus A scorpion fits (sometimes) damps because their range performance is way too strong, 3 EW range rigs and it has with damps a better chance to efficiently disable a 2 SB2 sniper BS (= dampened to 85-110 targeting range with a single damp) with them (and can also fit a full 4 slot armortank) than with racial ECM and 4 SDA2 in the lows.
achoura	Posted - 2007.08.05 10:33:00 - [22] Edited by: achoura on 05/08/2007 10:35:35 Edited by: achoura on 05/08/2007 10:33:46 My arazu currently requires 3 damps + 2 rigs to bring a sensor boosting bs below 20km. Fortunately you don't know what you're talking about, in fact the basis of your argument is allot of hot air and we're all the better for it. Sensor boosters targeting range is not to 250km, i'm taking it as a given that 250km is/was the basis for your calculations meaning that they're all off. When ccp introduced the Rokh they capped max targeting at 249km, you can still buff your dread up to 460km range you just can't utilise it however that is the range used in damp calculation. If you had done any research or applied any real though to your argument before starting a thread (in the wrong forum section btw) you would know this,a s this stands all you are effectively doing is handing us your opinion that ecm like dampeners is overpowered as one damp ship can disable one carrier, the fact that this is exactly what ecm is supposed to do seemingly irrelevant. Incidently, sensor strength is tied to ecm, not rsd, more interestingly, while my arqazu can successfully cripple one capital class vessel a rook if similar skill will simultaneously cripple 6 capital class vessels. Your numbers don't need tweaking m8, they arn't there to be tweaked .
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.08.05 10:36:00 - [23] When was the last time you got ECMd? I haven't been succesfully ECMd after the ECM gimp. They are seriously underpowered atm and need a serious boost so that they could perform up to specifications. Same goes with TDs. The point to why EW should not be nerfed any more is simple. It would remove EW as a viable strategy altogether. The idea that only bonused ships should be able to use EW is as redicilous as only having bonused ships use tanking modules, or fit weapons. It brings us closer to a simple class approach system and reduces unpredictability. Even at the moment there are practically only 2 or 3 effective fits for all ships (less for frigates) and gimping the EW strategy further will only leave the playing field even more predictible, and more uninspiring. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Imaos	Posted - 2007.08.05 10:56:00 - [24] Originally by: William Hamilton I agree with the OP, the problem isn't that a few damps can reduce a ship to inefectiveness, the problem is that a few damps can reduce ANY ship to ineffictiveness. A maulus, a techI frigate, loaded with dampners can make a carrier completely useless, this is absolute madness, no other e-war can affect all ship sizes as well as damps do, they all se preformance drop-offs against the big ones.... Sure a maulus has enough cap to fire enough dampners to do that. We have almost the same problem here that we got with the nano everything times. Bigger ships can fit any module that is designed for smaller ships without problems and without drawbacks if the needed performance is the same. (Unlike smaller reps/booster). The dedicated ships need a cap use bonus for damps and the modules need more cap usage so not every combat ship (especially larger and not paper thin ship) can use it that easily. At the moment using 3 damps on a dominix isnt a drain at all on the cap, but using 3 on an arazu AND trying to use t2 guns to bring down an enemy 1v1 is pretty hard on the cap of the recon. I still think cap balancing them is the best way to go. Oh. And using carriers as an example is silly. The lockrange of carriers needs to be boosted anyways. It is shorter than most battleships. (And no solo ship either) Imaos ------------------------------------------ Originally by: General Apocalypse Idiots need a serious nerf Say NO to the NOS nerf Whiners need a serious nerf or show up in-game.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.05 11:05:00 - [25] Edited by: Aramendel on 05/08/2007 11:11:43 Originally by: achoura My arazu currently requires 3 damps + 2 rigs to bring a sensor boosting bs below 20km. Only if it fits 3 sensorboosters. Or 2 sensorboosters for 2 ships: scorpion and rokh. Quote: Incidently, sensor strength is tied to ecm, not rsd, more interestingly, while my arqazu can successfully cripple one capital class vessel a rook if similar skill will simultaneously cripple 6 capital class vessels. Right. You are accusing the OP of not doing his research (which is true, though) and then you bring THAT? Rook has with racial jammers up to 13 jamming strength. A carrier has on average 74 sensorstrength. This means it has per jammer a 17.6% chance to succeed. Succeeding with those stats with 6 targets at once is a 0.003% probability. Or in other words, will happen in one out of 34000 jamming cycles. Or, again, in other words: if you would jam continuously for 8 days it would happen once on average. With 3 sensorboosters the carrier with the longest locking range (chimera) has 449k there. 3 damps of the arazu with your fitting will reduce that below 20k. They chance for the rook to disable that carrier (if it fits the right racials and fills his lows with SDAs and uses ECM strength rigs) with 3 jammers is 41%.
Rigsta Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.08.05 11:21:00 - [26] Edited by: Rigsta on 05/08/2007 11:21:32 Originally by: Nietarr The Problem: Currently, RSD's do not have an effective counter. Bzzzzt. The counter to a ship dampening a carrier is to blow the ship up. Everyone else either gets closer, uses a sensor booster (minimal skill requirement), or blasts the dampening ship. You do make an intriguing suggestion that sounds like it could work, though it would obsolete the celestis and maulus somewhat. Originally by: Jim McGregor I felt the disturbance... it was like a million voices suddenly stopped whining for a second. Unfortunantly it then continued.
Imaos	Posted - 2007.08.05 11:27:00 - [27] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Imaos Oh. And using carriers as an example is silly. The lockrange of carriers needs to be boosted anyways. It is shorter than most battleships. (And no solo ship either) Boosted? Maybe. "shorter than most battleships"? Not really. The only carrier which has locking ranges which are below that of 2 battleships is the nidhoggur: 87k vs the scorps and rokhs 90k. Archon is 90k, thanatos 100k and chimera 110k. Sorry. Actually haven't looked at the item database for carriers, but was basing it on one of the other nerf dampening threads where someone claimed a base range of 50km. Btw. Can't the carrier delegate the fighter to an undamped ship and nuke the recon? Imaos ------------------------------------------ Originally by: General Apocalypse Idiots need a serious nerf Say NO to the NOS nerf Whiners need a serious nerf or show up in-game.
Stakhanov Katana's Edge	Posted - 2007.08.05 12:08:00 - [28] /me flings poo at the OP Seriously , damps are more used because ECM and ECM burst were overly nerfed. Next you guys are going to ask for a nerf to ewar drones I'm all for boosting ECCM , but this is silly. As you pointed it out , T1 damp ships have a much lower sensor strength than T2 , their entire point is to be cheap and accessible to allow new players to give significant support to their gang. Do you see lots of them around ? I don't. With that nerf they'd be just good for shield tanking ratters. Capital Ships Online is bad enough as is. There's already a class of EW invulnerable carriers , they're called motherships. Fighter drones can aggro through ewar , let's not make it even easier. Oh , and guess who has lots of mid slots and higher sensor strength than everyone else ? That's right , caldari. This suggestion does nothing to address damp ravens and the like. You'd see more caldari dampeners and more gallente ECM users. So much for racial ewar
Alex SOKOLOFF 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.08.05 12:41:00 - [29] Dampeners are ok. All nerfs comes cause ppl whine that something overpowered. Dampeners dont need to be nerfed.
n0thing omen.	Posted - 2007.08.05 13:11:00 - [30] Originally by: Alex SOKOLOFF Dampeners are ok. All nerfs comes cause ppl whine that something overpowered. Dampeners dont need to be nerfed. Exactly, Arazu and Lanchesis are only T2 cruisers and recons that can be soloed by T1 cruiser. ---

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.